A. The Process of Trusting
1. The Trust Exchange—Take 1
Trust is often misunderstood to (merely) involve a dyadic,
215unidirectional
216relationship consisting of (i) A having trust (in B) and,
accordingly, being trusting (vis-à-vis B) on the one hand, and (ii) B being
trustworthy (vis-à-vis A) and, accordingly, being trusted (by A) on the other
hand.
217To this, sometimes, is introduced a third element (but without
changing the basic dyadic relationship between the trusting parties): the
(tangible or intangible) object or matter (C) which is entrusted by A to B
during an instance of consummated trusting.
218Notwithstanding such
213See Child, supra note 1, at 279-84 (distinguishing among three phases in the evolution of trust labeled (1) "Calculation" ["The Start"]; (2) "Understanding" ["Working Together"]; and (3) "Bonding" ["Building on Liking Each Other"]).
214See Ben-Ner & Putterman, supra note 1, at 538 ("If I interact with you and you do not let me down, I may raise my estimate of your trustworthiness, giving me an interest in interacting with you again.").
215See Russell Hardin, Trust, in 3 P-Z T
HE NEW PALGRAVE DICTIONARY OF ECONOMICS AND THE LAW 623, 623 (Peter Newman, ed., 2002); cf. Burke & Stets, supra note 173, at 348 ("Self-verification leads to positive self-evaluations and positive other-evaluations in the form of dyadic trust, and trust facilitates attachment to the other."); Mayer et al., supra note 160, at 711; Oliver E. Williamson, The Evolving Science of Organization, 149 J. INST. & THEORETICAL ECON. 36, 56 (1993) ("Transaction cost economics mainly works out a dyadic setup.").
216Rather than reciprocal. See Mayer et al., supra note 160, at 729-30 ("[T]rust as considered in this model is unidirectional: from a given trustor to a given trustee."); Blair & Stout, Behavioral Foundations, supra note 11, at 1779 ("There may be some risk in assuming that the same variables that influence two-way trust necessarily apply to 'one-way' trust as well."); Hill & O'Hara, supra note 11, at 1729-30 ("[T]rust and distrust are assumed to lie along a unidimensional continuum."); Toshio Yamagishi & Karen S. Cook, Generalized Exchange and Social Dilemmas, 56 SOC. PSYCHOL. Q. 235, 245 (1993).
217Ben-Ner & Putterman, supra note 1, at 525 ("In this paper we investigate the meaning of trust, separating it into two elements: trusting (by A) and trustworthiness (of B)."); Blair & Stout, Behavioral Foundations, supra note 11, at 1745-46 ("[T]rust involves at least two actors—the actor who trusts and the actor who is trusted."); Ide & Yarn, supra note 11, at 1118 ("If A trusts B, A expects or believes that B will behave in an other-regarding manner that will not exploit A's vulnerability.").
218Baier, supra note 19, at 236 (discussing trust as "a three-place predicate (A trusts B with valued thing C)"); Russell Hardin, Do We Want Trust in Government?, in DEMOCRACY AND TRUST
22, 28 (Mark E. Warren ed., 1999) ("A trusts B to do x (or with respect to x)."); Jones, supra note 166, at 17-18.
characterization of trusting as a three-part relationship,
219the trusting of A in
B with regard to C is always a two-party relationship (even if C is a person,
for example, a baby to be baby-sat by B).
220A and B are the (only) subjects
that engage in, and consummate, the trusting relationship.
221C is solely the
object (and never a subject) of the trusting relationship between A and B.
222This basic dyadic cause-and-effect trusting process and undertaking
between two parties is, however, only the beginning of the procedural
structure of trusting which is significantly more intricate and complex:
223Not only does B signal trustworthiness to A (in the sense of "I am willing to
be trusted and worthy of being trusted."); A also signals to B trustfulness (in
the sense of "I am willing to give trust and worthy of being trusted to
trust.")—an often overlooked aspect of the central reciprocity that undergirds
the process (and substance) of trusting.
224Trustworthiness and trustfulness
are signaled and exchanged between A and B before, during, and after the
consummation of any actions that include an actual, mutual instance of
trusting.
225Through the process of trusting and the resultant juxtaposition
and quantification of (i) pre-trusting trustfulness of A (by B) as well as pre-
trusting trustworthiness of B (by A) on the one hand, and (ii) post-trusting
trustfulness of A (again, by B) as well as post-trusting trustworthiness of B
(by A) on the other hand, each of A and B can individually compare and
evaluate their respective personal utilities arising from the trusting
relationship, once lived, in terms of either increases (net gains) or decreases
(net losses) of trust and, thus, of respective increases or decreases of
trustworthiness and trustfulness.
226219Siebecker, supra note 11, at 149 ("[T]rust represents a three-part relationship."); Hardin, supra note 215, at 623 ("[T]rust is a three-part relation: A trusts B to do, or with respect to, X.").
220See Ermisch et al., supra note 3, at 751. 221See id.
222It is, of course, possible for C to simultaneously have her own binary trusting relationship(s) with A and/or B in addition to A trusting B—even with regard to herself as the object (for example, C trusting A with regard to C). Cf. Hardin, supra note 215, at 623 ("[T]rust is a three- part relation: A trusts B to do, or with respect to, X.").
223Cf. Lewis & Weigert, supra note 13, at 967 (describing "trust as an irreducible and multidimensional social reality"); Rousseau et al., supra note 14, at 394 (referring to the "complex (one might say 'multiplex') character of trust").
224Cf. Ide & Yarn, Fact Finding, supra note 11, at 1119 ("If A cannot trust B to reciprocate, then either A will not cooperate and will forfeit the potential benefits or A will expend resources to monitor and control B to ensure B reciprocates.").
225Cf. Blair & Stout, Behavioral Foundations, supra note 11, at 1745-46 ("Trust and trustworthiness accordingly are closely linked, with the former depending upon an expectation of the latter.").
226Cf. Ide & Yarn, Fact Finding, supra note 11, at 1119 (describing how a trust relationship is either built or not consummated).
But that is still far from all: If the process of trusting constitutes an
exchange transaction in which A and B trade existing pre-trusting levels of
trustfulness and trustworthiness for post-trusting gains or losses of
trustfulness and trustworthiness,
227each signal and exchange of
trustworthiness by each party must also logically include a signal and
exchange of trustfulness by the same party—and vice versa—even if only on
a higher level of abstraction.
228Accordingly, three (somewhat chronological)
stages of reciprocity can be distinguished for each of A and B with regard to
any discreet exercise of trusting occurring in such a binary, two-party
relationship. The following Figure 2 more schematically describes the basics
of the resultant six separate structural positions existing among the
reciprocities of pre-trusting ("Stage-1 trusting"), in-trusting ("Stage-2
trusting") and post-trusting ("Stage-3 trusting").
227Cf. Cook, Networks, Norms, and Trust, supra note 173, at 10-11 ("[T]rust is viewed as a 'by-product' of dyadic commitment. The commitment emerges as individuals in the exchange setting find partners they view as trustworthy—those who reciprocate or who negotiate fair deals, depending on the form of exchange involved.").
228Cf. Blair & Stout, Behavioral Foundations, supra note 11, at 1750 ("If Ann believes that Beth's desire to behave trustworthily is strong enough to deter Beth from taking advantage of Ann, Ann may conclude it is safe to make herself vulnerable to Beth—that is, to trust Beth."); id. at 1772 73 ("[P]layers look to others' behavior as a signal in a novel and otherwise ambiguous social situation of what the appropriate norm of conduct is, and whether the context calls for primarily cooperative or competitive behavior."); Ide & Yarn, Fact Finding, supra note 11, at 1121 ("[P]eople are more likely to be trustworthy when other people trust them."); Lewis & Weigert, supra note 13, at 970 ("Each trusts on the assumption that others trust.").
Figure 2
The Procedural Reciprocities of Trusting
Trusting Relationship
B
A
Signaling Trustfulness
Stage-1
a.
Reciprocity
Signaling Trustworthiness
b.
(pre-trusting)
Entrusting with Trustfulness
Stage-2
c.
Reciprocity
Entrusting with Trustworthiness
d.
(in-trusting)
Signaling Trustfulness
Stage-3
e.
Reciprocity
Signaling Trustworthiness
f.
(post-trusting)
The claim made in Figure 2 with regard to a three-stage chronology of
trusting only posits that (i) it is possible to differentiate those three stages of
reciprocity and to conceptually treat them as separate from each other; (ii)
the three stages occur in succession to each other; and (iii) each succeeding
stage builds on the strength of the trusting reciprocity of its preceding
stage(s)
229so that all three stages are necessarily interconnected with, and
interdependent of, each other. No claim is made that each stage requires
completion before the next stage may begin. Furthermore, no lockstep exists
between stages.
230Thus, each stage can merge seamlessly into the
229Cf. Ide & Yarn, Fact Finding, supra note 11, at 1119 ("The more A can trust B to reciprocate, the less A must spend to ensure reciprocation or to punish B. One way interpersonal or mutual trust develops between individuals is through repeated interactions that allow the actors to generalize the expectation of continued cooperative behavior in subsequent interactions. Distrust arises when behavioral expectations are violated in one interaction so as to create a generalization to subsequent interactions, giving the violator a reputation for being untrustworthy.") (footnotes omitted).
immediately next (or immediately preceding) stage. In addition, trust parties
may decide—after commencing Stage-2 trusting (or Stage-3 trusting)—to
return (temporarily) to Stage-1 (or Stage-2) trusting in order to shore up the
likelihood of net increases at Stage-3 trusting. Finally, all three stages can
(and often will) occur in extremely rapid succession, blending and merging
together instantly. Still, for purposes of a theoretical understanding of the
process of trusting, all three stages of trusting can be separated and
distinguished from each other in order to show the inevitable and
fundamental procedural element and character of trusting.
a.
Procedural Reciprocity—Stage 1: Pre-Trusting
In their pre-trusting stage (Stage-1 trusting), before any consummation
of their trusting relationship has begun, A is signaling trustfulness to B (= a.
in Figure 2 above) and B is signaling trustworthiness to A (= b. in Figure 2
above). Since each signal and exchange of trustworthiness by each party
also includes a mutual signal and exchange of trustfulness by the same
party,
231this preparatory Stage-1 reciprocity (of A and B getting ready to
engage in consummating a trusting exercise with each other) can be further
described separately (and differently) by focusing on the party, A or B, who
engages in reciprocating behavior or—more precisely—who signals its
willingness to engage in such reciprocating behavior at a later point in time
during the process of trusting.
If the focus is on A as the reciprocating party:
1a. A signaling Stage-1 trustfulness to B (= a. above)
translates into A's Stage-1 trustworthiness of A reciprocating B's
Stage-1 trustworthiness with Stage-2 trusting; and
1b. B signaling Stage-1 trustworthiness to A (= b. above)
translates into B's Stage-1 trustfulness of A reciprocating B's
Stage-1 trustworthiness with Stage-2 trusting.
If we then invert the focus and put it now on B while B is in the
process of signaling B's willingness for future reciprocation:
2a. A signaling Stage-1 trustfulness to B (= a. above)
translates into B's Stage-1 trustworthiness of B reciprocating A's
Stage-2 trusting with Stage-2 trustworthiness; and
benefits of trust behavior do not march in lockstep."). 231See supra note 228 and accompanying text.
2b. B signaling Stage-1 trustworthiness to A (= b. above)
translates into A's Stage-1 trustfulness of B reciprocating A's
Stage-2 trusting with Stage-2 trustworthiness.
Similarly, if the focus is not on the reciprocating party, but on how
Stage-1 trusting appears to each party from its own perspective or vantage
point, one ends up with a flip-side of the situation above: Stage-1 trusting
from A's perspective is now represented by 1a. and 2b. above, whereas
Stage-1 trusting from B's perspective is described in 1b. and 2a. above (in
each case, with the latter reciprocity succeeding and being premised on the
former).
b.
Procedural Reciprocity—Stage 2: In-Trusting
By "procedural reciprocity" during the very stage in which A and B
actually are in the process of consummating their trusting relationship, I
mean that what is (reciprocally) trusted must exist and be observable,
irrespective of the particular factual substance and social context of
trusting,
232and irrespective of the particular object of trusting (i.e.,
irrespective of C). Thus, notwithstanding what the particular (tangible or
intangible) object or matter of trust is which—external to both parties—
gives rise and is subjected to the trusting relationship, A is entrusting A's
signaled Stage-1 trustfulness to B (= c. in Figure 2 above) and B is now
trusting A's trustfulness (including the build-in reciprocities of 1a. and 2b.
above)
233—while B is entrusting B's signaled Stage-1 trustworthiness to A (=
d. in Figure 2 above) and A is now trusting B's trustworthiness (including the
built-in reciprocities of 1b. and 2a. above).
234In doing so, A and B have now
agreed upon, committed to, and locked in their step-by-step plan of how
(much) they will trust each other and consummate such trust. They have
established between themselves a "collective cognitive reality"
235that
232See Siebecker, supra note 11, at 150 ("[T]rust remains tethered to specific situations . . . [and] requires some attentiveness to particularity, to the circumstances within which people find themselves situated at any given time.").
233In other words, with A entrusting A's Stage-1 trustfulness in B, B is now also trusting (i) A's (continued) Stage-1 trustworthiness of A reciprocating B's Stage-1 trustworthiness with Stage-2 trusting (= 1a. above), and (ii) A's (continued) Stage-1 trustfulness of B reciprocating A's Stage-2 trusting with Stage-2 trustworthiness (= 2b. above).
234Likewise, with B entrusting B's Stage-1 trustworthiness in A, A is now also trusting (i) B's Stage-1 trustfulness of A reciprocating B's Stage-1 trustworthiness with Stage-2 trusting (= 1b. above); and (ii) B's Stage-1 trustworthiness of B reciprocating A's Stage-2 trusting with Stage-2 trustworthiness (= 2a. above).
operates (and creates benefits and costs) independent of the objective of their
cooperation (and of the net increase or decrease of value which eventually
accrues to each of them in regard to such objective and its achievement).
236Furthermore, two additional procedural reciprocities occur during the
entrusting exchange of c. and d. in Figure 2 above (again, depending upon
which party's reciprocating behavior the focus is based).
1c. A entrusting Stage-1 trustfulness to B (= c. above)
translates into A's Stage-2 trustworthiness of (i) A affirming B's
Stage-1 trustworthiness as well as (ii) A self-affirming A's own
Stage-1 trustfulness—both, during Stage-2 trusting; and
1d. B entrusting Stage-1 trustworthiness to A (= d. above)
translates into B's Stage-2 trustfulness of (i) A affirming B's
Stage-1 trustworthiness as well as (ii) A self-affirming A's own
Stage-1 trustfulness—both, during Stage-2 trusting.
2c. A entrusting Stage-1 trustfulness to B (= c. above)
translates into A's Stage-2 trustfulness of (i) B affirming A's
Stage-1 trustfulness as well as (ii) B self-affirming B's own
Stage-1 trustworthiness—both, during Stage-2 trusting; and
2d. B entrusting Stage-1 trustworthiness to A (= d. above)
translates into B's Stage-2 trustworthiness of (i) B affirming A's
Stage-1 trustfulness as well as (ii) B self-affirming B's own
Stage-1 trustworthiness—both, during Stage-2 trusting.
It should be noted that what makes trust the powerful "glue"
237(which
so efficiently—and seemingly effortlessly—creates and holds cooperative
relationships together) lies in this crossed-over and intertwined reciprocity of
simultaneous, symmetrical and identical other-affirmation and self-
affirmation in which each party engages. It is as if each party is
simultaneously "dancing" with the other party and with itself (at least, in
abstract terms). When A affirms B's Stage-1 trustworthiness during Stage-2
trusting, B—at the same time and with instant feedback from A—self-affirms
B's own Stage-1 trustworthiness; when B affirms A's Stage-1 trustfulness
during Stage-2 trusting, A—at the same time and with instant feedback from
B—self-affirms A's own Stage-1 trustfulness.
236See Siebecker, supra note 11, at 150.
237Ribstein, supra note 4, at 553; see also Ellickson, supra note 4, at 540 ("Much of the glue of a society comes not from law enforcement, as the classicists would have it, but rather from the informal enforcement of social mores . . . .").